Talk:HMS Perseus (R51)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 08:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Progression

Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

a (Disambiguations): b (Linkrot) c (Alt text)

no dabs found by the tools;
ext link works;
image lacks alt text. While it is not a requirement, you might consider adding it in (it won't affect the outcome of the review, though).

Criteria

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):

"Over 1600 test launches..." I think this should be "1,600 test launches",
"Their design was based on that of the Illustrious class aircraft carriers, but modified...". I think that "Illustrious" should be in italics and there should be a hyphen before "class";
"The ship's crew totaled 854". Should probably be "totalled" (British English variation);
"ship departed Melbourne". Melbourne could probably be wikilinked;
"oad of aircraft to return to the UK". This abbreviation hasn't yet been formally introduced. While it is pretty common, some readers might not know it. You might want to change it to "United Kingdom (UK)". Not a major issue, though, and I won't hold the article back on it. Just a suggestion;
"Some 1560 launches were made by the catapult, beginning with over 1000 wheeled dead-loads" (probably need commas "1,560" and "1,000" for consistency of style);
in the body of the article: "Some 1560 launches were made by the catapult, beginning with over 1000 wheeled dead-loads. But in the infobox: "Over 1600 test launches were conducted". Seems inconsistent;
punctuation and grammar here: "over 1000 wheeled dead-loads, of gradually increasing weight and moving on with unmanned aircraft with their wings truncated to reduce their ability to glide". Might be better as: "over 1,000 wheeled dead-loads of gradually increasing weight, and moving on to unmanned aircraft with their wings truncated to reduce their ability to glide.";
this is a little jarring: "every type flown by the Fleet Air Arm. The ship arrived in Philadelphia on 14 January 1952..." I think it needs a conjunction. Maybe try: "every type flown by the Fleet Air Arm. After this, the ship sailed to Philadelphia, arriving there on 14 January 1952..."
"Perseus arrived back at Portsmouth on 21 March". The wikilink for "Portsmouth" here should probably be moved to earlier in the article;
- All done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

No issues.

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):

this image at the AWM: [3]. Indicates that a previous Perseus was sunk early in 1944. If correct, you might see fit to mention this in the text. For instance, something like: "The ship was renamed Perseus in July 1944; a ship bearing the name had been sunk earlier in the year..."
- I don't know that it was; the sunken Perseus was a submarine.
  - Apparently the submarine was sunk in 1941; the AWM is identifying a freighter or something similar, which they state was sunk in 1944. No dramas, though, if you don't think its relevant. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the Service section, it might pay to add a little bit more context clarifying that the war had ended. It wouldn't need more than a small clause or a sentence;
- Done.
"take charge of winding up the "Air Train" What's an Air Train? Is this something that could be explained by a link, or a note maybe?
- Good idea; how does it read?
  - Yes, that's fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"arrived at Rosyth on 17 May where she was placed in reserve". I wonder if some context could be added here. What did this mean? For instance, was the ship simply tied up at a dock and left unmanned, etc? Probably only needs a clause or a sentence to explain this sufficiently;
- There are various levels of reserve and I'm not sure to what level Perseus was reduced.
"Perseus sold for scrap in May 1958 and towed to Port Glasgow to begin demolition". Do we know when demolition was finished?
- I'm afraid not.
  - No worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

No issues.

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:

No issues.

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:

I wonder if there might be a public domain photograph available through the Imperial War Museum. Has this been checked? If there is something, it would probably be better than the non-free image currently used, although I suppose one could make an argument that the images shows an experimental piece of equipment (the rationale doesn't currently say this specifically, though);
- I've subsituted an IWM photo, but kept the NFU photo, although I'll have to amend the rationale.
  - Looks fine now, IMO. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

IMO, this is close to being a GA, but still needs a few things covered off on, or discussed, before it can be promoted. I've outlined them above. Happy to discuss anything you don't agree with. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passing now. Good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]